Should prayer during non-religious ceremonies be banned when it comes to mandatory events?
Religion should not be a formal part of compulsory ceremonies. It should never be compulsory to listen to someone's religious expression. But, that does not mean that religion should be banned from the public square or hidden from non-compulsory sight. There is plenty of room for religious expression in uniform at voluntary events where a service member's personal story is part of the event. For instance it would be inappropriate for the government to ban or censor the prayer of a Chaplain at a military funeral at Arlington National Cemetery if the service member or their family requested it. If a service member were asked what contributed to their success in the military or what got them through a combat crap sandwich a brief expression of their faith would not be inappropriate as long as it was not a set up to guarantee that they could proselytize.
I personally find it humorous when someone is outraged by an expression of religious faith in the public square, or they go beyond their legitimate right to hold and express their own belief and feel obligated to attack the beliefs of people of faith. They feel that their attack to discredit is an expression of their faith. It isn't. Its just being a contrarian ass.
"Furthermore, it is hardly fair to lay the blame at the feet of religion for world conflict. Then as now, most conflicts are about control of resources, obtaining power, or maintaining power. People may have appropriated religion as justification for their actions, but religion was hardly the cause."
That statement proves that religion is the reason and that without it the world would be better place....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science
Your antipathy toward religion has blinded you to any good and to any scientific advancement fostered by religion. Your view is at best myopic and one-sided.
Catholic Church and science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and science is a widely debated subject. Historically, the Church has often been a patron of sciences. It has been prolific in the foundation of schools, universities and hospitals, and many clergy have been active in the sciences. Historians of science such as Pierre Duhem credit medieval Catholic mathematicians and philosophers such as John Buridan, Nicole Oresme and Roger Bacon as the...
Raymond Damadian, Inventor of the MRI | The Institute for Creation Research
Dr. Raymond Damadian is the “father of the MRI” (Magnetic Resonance Imaging). MRI is widely recognized as “one of the great medical breakthroughs of the 20th century” and has saved and enhanced countless lives.1
CPT (Join to see) - Should the rights and beliefs of the minority be stifled for the sensibilities of the majority? Is it a violation of your free exercise to not allow you to force others to attend your religious practice? In our culture, it seems innocuous to say "bow your heads...". What if a commander was Muslim and told the formation to face Mecca and prostrate themselves? Would that too be OK?
If you complain loud/long enough, A1C (Join to see), sadly this will get changed.
I'm not an overly religious person (meaning I don't talk much about it or push my beliefs on anyone), but while I serve, I believe stronger in traditions than personal faith...prayer is a military tradition and if you do not like/agree with it, you don't have to serve.
The disrespect is on the part of those who demand an atheist be compelled to bow his head. But damn right I will disrespect you for trying to illegally force me to grovel to your god.
I've addressed it above, but as long as you keep bringing up "personal observation" or "directly observed" as you have above, it is pointless to discuss it. Your focus on that observation is indicative of a deep misunderstanding of the scientific process and evidence, and it is not my job to teach you that. You state that there is evidence of god, but that's merely an assertion, not evidence. There's a difference.
My Platoon Sargent had a quote from a Russian General that went like this: We know The American strategies just as good as The Yanks but we will never win against them because unlike The Russian troops when given an order to take a hill the will attack regardless and all die. The Americans Officer will give an order to take the hill and his NCO will looks at it the same hill and if it is too dangerous for a head on assault will look for a better way to take the hill to lose the least number of men. Thus changing their strategy on the fly so no force in the world will ever know why The Americans are doing?
Without knowing him or his record, we must assume a few things about the airman. I think he's at least average smart, at least average character, and has at least an average career of leadership ahead of him. My words, your words, everyone else's words have some influence on how he develops.
I hope that, as a leader, you can help our young service members maximize their potential value to our country.
If not, of course, then it is your right to assume the role of a former leader, instead.
Take a gander at some of the other current threads Ms Greene - the posts from junior members attacking O-6's for expressing their opinions. I don't agree with you one bit - if the A1C that saw fit to begin this conversation can't defend him/herself without assistance from others, then perhaps they shouldn't be posting anything here. Additionally, you have no idea about the number of young service members I've assisted over the years. It's still my choice to not assist anyone stating something I completely disagree with. Apparently, that's your job.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
The first clause was placed in the Bill of Rights so that the State (i.e. Federal Govt) could NOT establish a "State Religion" as was done in 18th century England (and many other countries to this day). The second clause permits us to worship our conscious as we see fit without interference from the Government.
I am not a "Church-goer" and I am not an atheist. I think it is great that folks worship as they please. Faith gives us a moral code; something that is sorely lacking in today's "popped up culture". If I am sitting at a table and someone wants to say a prayer before a meal; I say have at it. I am honored to be included and it is a right so many have fought and died for----- over and over again. We all took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution". Well guess what? The second clause of the 1st Amendment is part of the Constitution.
The author of the Declaration said it best:
"...it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
The fact that you're this bent out of shape over your fellow servicemembers' exercise of their clear constitutional rights is quite telling.
Most of my career involved shiftwork, meaning someone had to be on duty 24/7/365. I often volunteered to cover for colleagues to be home with family on their religious holidays. My desires for time off, including when I actually submitted a leave form, were not reciprocated in kind.
First Amendment Protection for Atheist groups - Atheists of Florida Inc.
Why Atheist groups deserve the same rights under the First Amendment as churches and other religious institutions.
Does that mean it also grants the prohibition of religion(s)?
Normally a Chaplain at these ceremonies will say a prayer, usually nondenominational to which ever religion (if any) the individuals choose.
But my question: if freedom of religion- free expression of religion- is implicitly stated, do we stretch that to deny practicing religion... To say 'no one can express any religion because the thoughts are different than my own?'
I'll reiterate MSgt Jonathan Stump 's question: "Once again, why do Christians get to do what they want, and the other religions have to take a back seat?" Your condescending remark about regulations and traditions utterly failed to address the subject. Regulations place restrictions on overt or coercive religious expression in the name of "good order and discipline". Some past traditions which have proven to be negative or detrimental have been eliminated. Is "getting one's feelings hurt often" your only option for dealing with inequities and discrimination?